Please make personal contact URGENTLY with
South Australian Members of Parliament and let them know that you are opposed to the
Online Services section of the
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Miscellaneous)Amendment Bill 2000.

An Internet censorship Bill was introduced into South Australian Parliament on 8th November 2000 by the Attorney-General, Trevor Griffin. Among other things, the Bill criminalises making available content unsuitable for children online, even if the content is only made available to adults. In other words, if you place "matter unsuitable for minors" on a web page, even on a password protected section of your site and give the password only to your adult friends, you could be prosecuted under criminal law. The maximum penalty planned is $10,000. The Bill covers content placed on the web (including archived mailing lists), messages to newsgroups, etc.

The SA Bill is part of the second component of the Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation (effective 1 January 2000). The South Australian Government (Liberal) is believed to be the first of the State/Territory Governments to act on the Commonwealth Government's request that they enact complementary enforcement legislation applicable to Internet users and content providers. Other States/Territories are likely to introduce similar legislation. If you hear of similar proposals in your State/Territory, please advise mail@efa.org.au. (Note: Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory enacted Internet censorship legislation prior to the Commonwealth legislation and it is not known whether they will amend their legislation to bring it into line with the proposed "national" regime).

Serious criminal justice issues arise from the provisions of the Online
Services (Part 7A) section of the above Bill, which is listed for debate
during the South Australian Legislative Council sittings commencing 13 March.

The proposed legislation subjects average everyday South Australians to
criminal proceedings for failure to foresee the classification that "would
be" granted, from time to time, to particular material by a non-unanimous
decision of members of the Classification Board of the Office of Film and
Literature Classification (OFLC). The recent controversy over the film
'Hannibal' highlights the fact that the OFLC Board members disagree over
the boundary between MA and R content, as do many other members of the
Australian community. The 'Hannibal' case is not an isolated one. SA police recently seized a book by acclaimed photographer Robert Mapplethorpe which the OFLC then classified unrestricted, demonstrating that even police cannot correctly guess classifications. No
provision is made to enable Internet users who wish to do so to obtain a
classification of material before publication on the Internet (and
Commonwealth law does not empower the OFLC to provide same, except to the
ABA and police). This is inconsistent with SA legislation regulating
off-line media and treats ordinary South Australians providing on-line
content less fairly under criminal law than off-line publishers of
magazines and films.

The Bill has serious deficiencies and requires amendment to
ensure that ordinary South Australians who use the Internet to
communicate are treated no less fairly under criminal law than
offline commercial publishers.

"Capturing attention is about South Australia's positioning as a hot spot within the global Information Economy-giving South Australia a new
prominence on the world map, creating a branded identity in a crowded
global village. Becoming a hot spot in the global Information Economy
means being a centre of activities and talent to which people want to
connect. Without such a marker, South Australia will become irrelevant
and relegated to the periphery of global activity."http://www.ie2002.sa.gov.au/plan/statement.htm

If you have particular personal concerns, e.g. if you publish
material on your own website, emphasise those.

Stress the damage that the Bill will do to the information economy in South Australia, and how will it will generate negative international
publicity about South Australia as a police state.

Requests for action: ask them to raise the matter in the party room;
if they seem supportive, suggest it is important enough an issue to
amend the Bill, or to cross the floor. Ask them to get
their party to pledge to repeal the legislation.

Be polite.

Face to face meetings.

If you live in South Australia call your local member (or one of the key opposition members listed below) and ask for a meeting before 13 March.

Writing a Letter

Keep letters short and preferably handwritten.

The form of address is:
Members of the Legislative Council (upper house):
"The Hon (firstname surname), MLC".
Members of the House of Assembly (lower house): "Mr/Ms (firstname surname), MP".
Ministers and others so entitled, are addressed as "The Hon". See the
S.A. Parliament Members list if uncertain.

If they try to fob you off by telling you to talk to Trevor Griffin's
office, tell them that he isn't responding to your concerns.

Be polite.

E-Mail

E-mails are not yet highly regarded by most members of parliament,
but for those who live outside South Australia this may be the most
effective form of communication. Known E-mail addresses of key
members are listed below under
Further Information. E-mails should be worded
politely but firmly.

Feedback

Please send a brief email advising of the response you receive to:
<feedback@efa.org.au>
The feedback you provide will help EFA to further refine the
Campaign.

makes it a criminal offence to make information available to adults about
"adult themes" including "suicide, crime, corruption, marital problems,
emotional trauma, drug and alcohol dependency, death and serious illness,
racism, religious issues", except in a "discreet" manner, that is, "with
little or no detail and generally brief" (see OFLC Guidelines for the MA
classification)

is inconsistent with Commonwealth law and more restrictive than Internet
censorship laws in Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory
(others have no Internet specific censorship laws yet)

invites constant enquiry as to the particular State or Territory laws at
issue as the law does not specify in which jurisdiction an offence (making
available or supply) takes place, i.e. the location of: the host server;
the content provider; or the person who downloads the material, each of
which may be in different States.

It is based on a totally inappropriate model.

The Internet is nothing like pay Television

On the Internet hundreds of millions of end-users can publish their
own content.

Applying the Film and Video classification scheme to Internet
content is totally inappropriate.

It is totally out of line with emerging international norms.

No other Western democracy implements anything remotely like this.

The accepted international trend is for governments to avoid excessive
Internet regulation.

The balance of power in both the South Australian House of Assembly (lower house)
and the Legislative Council (upper house) is held by independents. However,
the ALP is the dominant opposition party in both houses and the Democrats and SA First also hold key votes in the upper house. Government members will be supporting the Bill but the other parties' positions are not known at this stage.

... the innate worth of the individual and the need to encourage initiative
and personal responsibility
... the freedoms of the individual .... the basic freedoms of thought, of worship, of speech,
of association, of choice, and the right to be independent and to achieve.

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. is an association of individuals and
organisations concerned with online civil liberties. Further details
about EFA and a membership form are available on the EFA web site at: